Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
In his theory of Mimesis, Plato says that all art is mimetic by nature; art is an imitation of life. He believed that idea is the ultimate reality. Art imitates idea and so it is imitation of reality. He gives an example of a carpenter and a chair. The idea of chair first came in the mind of carpenter. He gave physical shape to his idea out of wood and created a chair. The painter imitated the chair of the carpenter in his picture of chair. Thus, painters chair is twice removed from reality. Hence, he believed that art is twice removed from reality. He gives first importance to philosophy as philosophy deals with the ideas whereas poetry deals with illusion things which are twice removed from reality. So to Plato, philosophy is superior to poetry. Plato rejected poetry as it is mimetic in nature on the moral and philosophical grounds. On the contrary, Aristotle advocated poetry as it is mimetic in nature. According to him, poetry is an imitation of an action and his tool of enquiry is neither philosophical nor moral. He examines poetry as a piece of art and not as a book of preaching or teaching.
sorrow and happiness encourage the weaker part of the soul and numb the faculty of reason. These charges are defended by Aristotle in his Theory of Catharsis. David Daiches summarizes Aristotles views in reply to Platos charges in brief: Tragedy (Art) gives new knowledge, yields aesthetic satisfaction and produces a better state of mind. 3. Plato judges poetry now from the educational standpoint, now from the philosophical one and then from the ethical one. But he does not care to consider it from its own unique standpoint. He does not define its aims. He forgets that everything should be judged in terms of its own aims and objectives, its own criteria of merit and demerit. We cannot fairly maintain that music is bad because it does not paint, or that painting is bad because it does not sing. Similarly, we cannot say that poetry is bad because it does not teach philosophy or ethics. If poetry, philosophy and ethics had identical function, how could they be different subjects? To denounce poetry because it is not philosophy or ideal is clearly absurd.
Introduction
All that is literature seeks to communicate power, all that is not literature seeks to communicate knowledge says Thomas De Quincy. We shall study the literature of power and its evaluation. Literature of power is also referred as creative writing while evaluation of creative writing is referred as criticism. The critical enquiry had begun almost in the 4th century B.C. in Greece. Plato, the great disciple of Socrates, was the first critic who examined poetry as a part of his moral philosophy. Plato was basically a moral philosopher and not a literary critic. Platos critical observations on poetry lie scattered in The Ion, The Symposium, The Republic and The Laws. In The Ion, he advocated poetry as a genuine piece of
imaginative literature, but in The Republic which is a treatise on his concepts of Ideal State, he rejected poetry on moral and philosophical grounds. Plato was a great moral philosopher and his primary concentration was to induce moral values in the society and to seek the ultimate Truth. So when he examines poetry his tool is rather moral and not aesthetic. He confused aesthetics with morality and ultimately concluded poetry as immoral and imitative in nature. On the other hand, Aristotle the most distinguished disciple of Plato was a critic, scholar, logician and practical philosopher. The master was an inspired genius every way greater than the disciple except in logic, analysis and commonsense. He is known for his critical treatises: (i) The Poetics and (ii) The Rhetoric, dealing with art of poetry and art of speaking, respectively. Aristotle examines poetry as a form of art and evaluates its constituent elements on the basis of its aesthetic beauty. For the centuries, Aristotle had been considered as a law-giver in the field of criticism in Europe. Aristotle actually observed the then available forms of literature and analyzed them and codified the rules. In his work he has described the characteristics of Tragedy, Comedy and Epic in elaborative manner. But unfortunately, the library of Athens was burnt down in which the most part of his treatise was lost whatever is available at present is considered as The Poetics. Fortunately we find a detailed note on Tragedy, which throws light also on the fundamental elements of good literature.
propounded for the first time by Aristotle in his theory of Catharsis. Therefore, we feel, the reverence which Aristotle has enjoyed through ages, has not gone to him undeserved. His insight has rightly earned it.
Aristotle classifies various forms of art with the help of object, medium and manner of their imitation of life. OBJECT: Which object of life is imitated determines the form of literature. If the Life of great people is imitative it will make that work a Tragedy and if the life of mean people is imitated it will make the work a Comedy. David Daiches writes explaining the classification of poetry which is imitative: We can classify poetry according to the kinds of people it represents they are either better than they are in real life, or worse, or the same. One could present characters, that is, on the grand or heroic scale; or could treat ironically or humorously the petty follies of men, or one could aim at naturalism presenting men neither heightened nor trivialized Tragedy deals with men on a heroic scale, men better than they are in everyday life whereas comedy deals with the more trivial aspects of human nature, with characters worse than they are in real life. MEDIUM: What sort of medium is used to imitate life again determines the forms of different arts. The painter uses the colours, and a musician will use the sound, but a poet uses the words to represent the life. When words are used, how they are used and in what manner or metre they are used further classifies a piece of literature in different categories as a tragedy or a comedy or an epic. The types of literature, says Aristotle, can be distinguished according to the medium of representation as well as the manner of representation in a particular medium. The difference of medium between a poet and a painter is clear; one uses words with their denotative, connotative, rhythmic and musical aspects; the other uses forms and colours. Likewise, the tragedy writer may make use of one kind of metre, and the comedy writer of another. MANNER: In what manner the imitation of life is presented distinguishes the one form of literature from another. How is the serious aspect of life imitated? For example, dramas are always presented in action while epics are always in narration. In this way the kinds of literature can be distinguished and determined according to the techniques they employ. David Daiches says: The poet can tell a story in narrative form and partly through the speeches of the characters (as Homer does), or it can all be done in third-person narrative, or the story can be presented dramatically, with no use of third person narrative at all.
Explanation of the definition: The definition is compact. Every word of it is pregnant with meaning. Each word of the above definition can be elaborated into a separate essay. All art is representation (imitation) of life, but none can represent life in its totality. Therefore, an artist has to be selective in representation. He must aim at representing or imitating an aspect of life or a fragment of life.
Action comprises all human activities including deeds, thoughts and feelings. Therefore, we find soliloquies, choruses etc. in tragedy. The writer of tragedy seeks to imitate the serious side of life just as a writer of comedy seeks to imitate only the shallow and superficial side. The tragic section presented on the stage in a drama should be complete or self contained with a proper beginning, proper middle and proper end. A beginning is that before which the audience or the reader does not need to be told anything to understand the story. If something more is required to understand the story than the beginning gives, it is unsatisfactory. From it follows the middle. In their turn the events from the middle lead to the end. Thus the story becomes a compact & self sufficient one. It must not leave the impression that even after the end the action is still to be continued, or that before the action starts certain things remain to be known. Tragedy must have close-knit unity with nothing that is superfluous or unnecessary. Every episode, every character and a dialogue in the play must carry step by step the action that is set into motion to its logical dnouement. It must give the impression of wholeness at the end. The play must have, then, a definite magnitude, a proper size or a reasonable length such as the mind may comprehend fully. That is to say that it must have only necessary duration, it should neither be too long to tire our patience nor be too short to make effective representation impossible. Besides, a drama continuing for hours indefinitely may fail to keep the various parts of it together into unity and wholeness in the spectators mind. The reasonable duration enables the spectator to view the drama as a whole, to remember its various episodes and to maintain interest. The language employed here should be duly embellished and beautified with various artistic ornaments (rhythm, harmony, song) and figures of speech. The language of our daily affairs is not useful here because tragedy has to present a heightened picture of lifes serious side, and that is possible only if elevated language of poetry is used. According to need, the writer makes use of songs, poetry, poetic dialogue; simple conversation etc is various parts of the play. Its manner of imitation should be action, not narration as in epic, for it is meant to be a dramatic representation on the stage and not a mere story-telling. Then, for the function/aim of tragedy is to shake up in the soul the impulses of pity and fear, to achieve what he calls Catharsis. The emotions of pity and fear find a full and free outlet in tragedy. Their excess is purged and we are lifted out of our selves and emerges nobler than before.
Introduction
1.1 Introduction All that is literature seeks to communicate power, all that is not literature seeks to communicate knowledge says Thomas De Quincy. We shall study the literature of power and its evaluation. Literature of power is also referred as creative writing while evaluation of creative writing is referred as criticism.
The critical enquiry had begun almost in the 4th century B.C. in Greece. Plato, the great disciple of Socrates, was the first critic who examined poetry as a part of his moral philosophy. Plato was basically a moral philosopher and not a literary critic. Platos critical observations on poetry lie scattered in The Ion,
The Symposium, The Republic and The Laws. In The Ion, he advocated poetry as a genuine piece of imaginative literature, but in The Republic which is a treatise on his concepts of Ideal State, he rejected poetry on moral and philosophical grounds.
Plato was a great moral philosopher and his primary concentration was to induce moral values in the society and to seek the ultimate Truth. So when he examines poetry his tool is rather moral and not aesthetic. He confused aesthetics with morality and ultimately concluded poetry as immoral and imitative in nature. On the other hand, Aristotle the most distinguished disciple of Plato was a critic, scholar, logician and practical philosopher. The master was an inspired genius every way greater than the disciple except in logic, analysis and commonsense. He is known for his critical treatises: (i) The Poetics and (ii) The Rhetoric, dealing with art of poetry and art of speaking, respectively. Aristotle examines poetry as a form of art and evaluates its constituent elements on the basis of its aesthetic beauty. For the centuries, Aristotle had been considered as a law-giver in the field of criticism in Europe. Aristotle actually observed the then available forms of literature and analyzed them and codified the rules. In his work he has described the characteristics of Tragedy, Comedy and Epic in elaborative manner. But unfortunately, the library of Athens was burnt down in which the most part of his treatise was lost whatever is available at present is considered as The Poetics. Fortunately we find a detailed note on Tragedy, which throws light also on the fundamental elements of good literature.
plot contains a beginning, a middle and an end, where the beginning is what is not posterior to another thing, while the middle needs to have something happened before, and something to happen after it, but after the end there is nothing else. The characters serve to advance the action of the story, not vice verse. The ends we pursue in life, our happiness and our misery, all take the form of action. Tragedy is written not merely to imitate man but to imitate man in action. That is, according to Aristotle, happiness consists in a certain kind of activity rather than in a certain quality of character. As David Daiches says: the way in which the action works itself out, the whole casual chain which leads to the final outcome. Diction and Thought are also less significant than plot: a series of well-written speeches has nothing like the force of a well-structured tragedy. Lastly, Aristotle notes that forming a solid plot is far more difficult than creating good characters or diction. Having asserted that the plot is the most important of the six parts of tragedy, he ranks the remainder as follows, from most important to least: Character, Thought, Diction, Melody, and Spectacle. Character reveals the individual motivations of the characters in the play, what they want or don't want, and how they react to certain situations, and this is more important to Aristotle than thought, which deals on a more universal level with reasoning and general truths. Diction, Melody/ Songs and Spectacle are all pleasurable accessories, but the melody is more important in tragedy than spectacle. The ideal tragic hero, according to Aristotle, should be, in the first place, a man of eminence. The actions of an eminent man would be serious, complete and of a certain magnitude, as required by Aristotle. Further, the hero should not only be eminent but also basically a good man, though not absolutely virtuous. The sufferings, fall and death of an absolutely virtuous man would generate feelings of disgust rather than those of terror and compassion which a tragic play must produce. The hero should neither be a villain nor a wicked person for his fall, otherwise his death would please and satisfy our moral sense without generation the feelings of pity, compassion and fear. Therefore, the ideal tragic hero should be basically a good man with a minor flaw or tragic trait in his character. The entire tragedy should issue from this minor flaw or error of judgment. The fall and sufferings and death of such a hero would certainly generate feelings of pity and fear. So, Aristotle says: For our pity is excited by misfortunes undeservedly suffered, and our terror by some resemblance between the sufferer and ourselves. Finally, Aristotle says: There remains for our choice a person neither eminently virtuous nor just, nor yet involved in misfortune by deliberate vice or villainy, but by some error or human frailty; and this person should also be someone of high-fame and flourishing prosperity. Such a man would make an ideal tragic hero.
Probable and yet more beautiful than life. The tragic hero having all the characteristics mentioned above, has, in addition, a few more attributes. In this context Aristotle begins by the following observation, A good man coming to bad end. (Its shocking and disturbs faith) A bad man coming to good end. (neither moving, nor moral) A bad man coming to bad end. (moral, but not moving) A rather good man coming to bad end. (an ideal situation) Aristotle disqualifies two types of characters purely virtuous and thoroughly bad. There remains but one kind of character, who can best satisfy this requirement A man who is not eminently good and just yet whose misfortune is not brought by vice or depravity but by some error of frailty. Thus the ideal Tragic Hero must be an intermediate kind of a person- neither too virtuous nor too wicked. His misfortune excites pity because it is out of all proportion to his error of judgement, and his over all goodness excites fear for his doom. Thus, he is a man with the following attributes: He should be a man of mixed character, neither blameless nor absolutely depraved. His misfortune should follow from some error or flaw of character; short of moral taint. He must fall from height of prosperity and glory. The protagonist should be renowned and prosperous, so that his change of fortune can be from good to bad. The fall of such a man of eminence affects entire state/nation. This change occurs not as the result of vice, but of some great error or frailty in a character. Such a plot is most likely to generate pity and fear in the audience. The ideal tragic hero should be an intermediate kind of a person, a man not preeminently virtuous and just yet whose misfortune is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgement. Let us discuss this error of judgement in following point.
Unity of Action
The combination of incidents which are the action of the play, should be one one story told, which is not to say it has to be about only one person, since characters are not in the centre of the tragedy, but the action itself is. He is against the plurality of action because it weakens the tragic effect. Number of incidents should be connected to each other in such a way that they must be conducive to one effect. The Unity of Action limits the supposed action to a single set of incidents which are related as cause and effect, "having a beginning, middle, and an end." No scene is to be included that does not advance the plot directly. No subplots, no characters who do not advance the action. This unity of action evidently contains a beginning, a middle and an end, where the beginning is what is not posterior to another thing, while the middle needs to have something happened before, and something to happen after it, but after the end there is nothing else.
The chain of events has to be of such nature as might have happened, either being possible in the sense of probability or necessary because of what forewent. Anything absurd can only exist outside of the drama, what is included in it must be believable, which is something achieved not by probability alone, It is, moreover, evident from what has been said that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened but what may happen- what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.(Poetics in Critical Theory Since Plato, ed. Adams. P. 54) Aristotle even recommends things impossible but probable, before those possible but improbable. What takes place should have nothing irrational about it, but if this is unavoidable, such events should have taken place outside of the drama enacted.
Unity of Time
As for the length of the play, Aristotle refers to the magnitude called for, a grandness indeed, but one which can be easily seen in its entirety in the aspect of length, than, one that can easily be remembered. The ideal time which the fable of a tragedy encompasses is one period of the sun, or admits but a small variation from this period. The Unity of Time limits the supposed action to the duration, roughly, of a single day. Aristotle meant that the length of time represented in the play should be ideally speaking the actual time passing during its presentation. We should keep in our minds that it is a suggestion i.e. to be tried as far as possible; there is nothing that can be called a rule.
Unity of Place
According to the Unity of Place, the setting of the play should have one place. Aristotle never mentioned the Unity of Place at all. The doctrine of the three unities, which has figured so much in literary criticism since the Renaissance, cannot be laid to his account. He is not the author of it; it was foisted on him by the Renaissance critics of Italy and France.
Functions of Tragedy
Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitudethrough pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.(Poetics, p. 10) The above given definition of Aristotle indicates that the function of tragedy is to arouse pity and fear in the spectator for both moral and aesthetic purpose. One has to remember in this context that he had Platos famous charge against the immoral effects of poetry on peoples minds. Aristotle uses the word in his definition of tragedy in chapter VI of Poetics, and there has been much debate on exactly what he meant. The key sentence is: Tragedy through pity and fear effects a purgation of such emotions. So, in a sense, the tragedy, having aroused powerful feelings in the spectator, has also a salubrious effect; after the storm and climax there comes a sense of release from tension, of calm. His theory of Catharsis consists in the purgation or purification of the excessive emotions of pity and fear. Witnessing the tragedy and suffering of the protagonist on the stage, such emotions and feelings of the audience are purged. The purgation of such emotions and feelings make them relieved, and they emerge as better human beings than they were. Thus, Aristotles theory of Catharsis has moral and ennobling function.
Let us Sum up
In this unit, we have learnt about the concepts of literature and criticism. We have tried to study some of the fundamental ideas of classical criticism. We studied Platos concept of mimesis and his objection to poetry. In addition to that, we have also studied Aristotles defence of poetry and his concept of tragedy. In his treatise on poetics, Aristotle defines tragedy along with the discussion on the various parts of it. We have also tried to understand how Aristotle has given the idea of the function of tragedy. Thus, Aristotle has not only defended poetry as an art form but also described the constituent elements of Tragedy in detail with its cathartic function. Plato and Aristotle the duo stand as torchbearers for all the critics ever after. It is because they have not only ignited the spirit of enquiry but also paved the way of evaluating and interpreting creative writing. In the light of these facts, the available corpus of classical criticism is highly revered and relevant even today.
Diction:- Special style of the Language, Expression and Wording Spectacle:- Stage Property Dnouement:-the clearing up or untying of the complications of the plot in a play or story. Usually it takes place at the end. Aesthetic:-concerned with beauty and its appreciation.